User-Staff Committee

Nominee's Name: Spam Reporter

Why do you think this person will make a good U.S.C member: Great attitude, friendly, helps out people around the forum.

 

I apologize if you answered it; I haven't seen it.

I think problem solving should be handled using the most convenient means; that being the fastest way to solve a problem without getting many people involved.

 

All of this will be decided later after discussions with the team, once its in place. What I feel should happen is us to create and agree on a set of bylaws to present to the users and after some changes by them, if needed, a vote to see if we can use them. All of those questions will be figured out then. We left the nit picky details to be discussed later as we wanted to get it out but also because we wanted more input.

We are both in it just to set it up. Afterwards we will only stay if people want us to. (Depending on what ever the bylaws say about it)

Honestly, there is only 2 leaders because there was two of us. And we thought that 4 new team members was a good number to start with the get ideas flowing and not get too big too fast.

 

Well, one main thing that we were thinking is that many times if a user has an issue with a staff member and they make a feedback thread, the staff yells drama and gets defensive and the members just get mad and attack or defend the staff. Its not good so we thought that the members could instead PM on of the U.S.C. members who could then handle the problem internally to get a resolution without all the drama and unhappiness.

 

I see that happening all the time, so I suppose it would be a good idea to have a mediator for an argument. All I can see happening is communication being channeled through someone instead of directly to each person. A mediator won't always change each person's thoughts or behavior.

 

We don't want to change someones views. We want people to be able to use a different method so that something might actually be done to solve the issue that they put forward.

 

Hahanerd45
Because He's awesome, helpful, friendly, etc.

 

Of course, every team needs a form of regulation. But the starting team members will get to decide just what that entails.

The setup is not yet determined. SuF and I are currently discussing it, however. But I feel like just with the other answer, it will be up to the first team that decides just how things are ran. I imagine there will be lots of suggestions, and decision making involved. The first team will get to set the grounds for the rest of the Committee's life or until it is amended in the future.

That cannot be answered yet. Currently, the leaders are SuF and myself. However, I do not wish to remain the leader as it will only complicate matters. I want this project to take off on its own, and to have an effective team capable of stabalizing without me should I have to quit.

I was just proposing to SuF that team positions change on a weekly basis, however, and that's something I'll present to the starting team in full once it has been selected.

Right now we're just in place to set it up. It is my belief that naturally, a leadership system such as this is corrupt, so our plan was to get it going as fast as possible, and make as few decisions as possible, so the project does not have the chance to enter that phase.

Right, well, the idea is that we would have good relations with both sides of the party.

Let's say User A dislikes Staff A. User A complains to a U.S.C. member about Staff A. That U.S.C. member is on good terms with both User A and Staff A. So the U.S.C. member talks to Staff A about "Some concerns being voiced", giving Staff A the chance to talk to someone friendly, and not have to deal with someone attacking them. User A is also free from prejudice as the U.S.C. would remain objective in the situation, and would leave User A anonymous unless otherwise requested.

The staff member could then solve the problem without anything going public, or anyone having to deal with excessive, unwanted arguments.

 

Trend carefully, USC. Staff members do not like being harassed on MSN regarding a specific report. Generally speaking, all reports are handled in the same manner and order submitted. Promising to essentially bump a report to the top of the list is mildly inappropriate and unfair.

 

True, but our intention is not to harass, merely improve the quality of certain reports so they may be handled faster, and marking them as U.S.C. Created so staff knows that they obey all the rules, and have a formal appeal to them so they can easily evaluate and judge.

 

In other words:

Back off, USC. Staff doesn't like being bothered about someone being scammed. We get around to answering reports in the order they're submitted. We treat all users equal, like crap, to ensure fairness.

 

I'm sure this will exceed everyone's expectations, cant wait to see how this progresses and who knows maybe i can help. (Support)

 

Deacon Frost:

Why do you think this person will make a good U.S.C member:
His posts around the forum are helpful and informative.

 

Please don't take this as an attack on USC, or that I'm trying to any way cause any negative attention towards the USC.

I feel that such a committee would actually do the opposite of benefiting users. After reading this thread, I realized that it would actually give USC members a more important opinion, while lessening that of a non-USC member. I kind of agree with Nick, staff shouldn't have to listen to a person more because they are part of some committee. Also, this could fail miserably if staff chose to just ignore you guys. What would happen then?

I'm not attacking you guys again, I'm questioning the idea.

 

If the staff truly wishes to be uncooperative, then that's their choice, but I feel that once they see the way things are done, they will change their mind and support us as well.

Members of the U.S.C. are just as important as a regular user, except the team puts more time and effort into producing quality results in what we do.

For instance, just a few hours ago, SuF was working on a custom template for making more effective suggestions. We'll be improving on it, just as we'll be making custom templates for scammer reports, disputes, etc. It's something simple, but this would allow for things like this to be answered quicker as the staff would not have to try and decipher a bunch of pointless content. Straight and to the point providing the necessary information while still achieving goals .

We're not going to be voicing much of our opinions, really. Most of what we'll be doing is just helping. If a user has a suggestion, we'll work with them to improve their suggestion so that when they post it, it gets the attention it deserves, rather than just ignored. And then, if the suggestion is not getting much attention from the staff and it's practical and easy to implement, we'll nudge a staff member saying "Hey, can you help progress this" or "This is a good idea, could you bring it to the attention of the others" or something like that.

The members of the team should generally be connected, that way when they do this, there's no hard feelings towards the member, and it's seen as a genuine interest in the community, rather than an annoyance or being bugged.

It's not about listening to us more because we're in a committee, it's about using the committee's name to show that we will do our best to provide higher quality posts and will be respectful in the way we approach things, so the staff and users know that they we are here to help. Naturally, at first, people will be skeptical of these intentions. Given time, however, you will come to find that we're going to be working very hard for little to no credit. Maybe then our true intentions will be visible .

 

Well I guess you can say you have my support.

 

Same here

 

Remember that for every one user that has 1500+ post count and uses Sythe.org 10 hours a day, there are another 100 users who just come to use the Markets occasionally. Just because they are not active in the community does not mean their opinions are unimportant. If you want to proclaim yourself as the voice of the people, be sure to take them into account.

 

''the leaders of the U.S.C. will choose the better of the two candidates.''

If you're representing the members of Sythe, then it should be their decision as to who they believe are ''the better of the two candidates'', in my opinion, it should be a full public vote so the members of Sythe can pick who they want to represent them.

So, no support from me.

 

Did you skip everything else?

First, what happens is all the candidates are put into a poll, if the poll is even, SuF and myself will be the deciding factor as we will retain our votes until the poll has closed and will cast them on the ones we see to be fitting for the qualities.

It's not like we're just going to pick people at random, but doing tie breakers, etc after a vote would be more time consuming and such, and pointless.